W in e R a t in g s :

C at er in g To Th e H
e r d Mentality,
r
A N ec es sa ry Evil?

N Point?
THE CLINICAL AND SOMEWHAT ERRONEOUS METHODS OF
SCORING OR RATING WINE DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT
THE HUMAN FACTOR, NOT ONLY DYSFUNCTIONAL TO ITS
PLEASURES, BUT UNFAIRLY DISQUALIFYING OTHERWISE
PERFECTLY AGREEABLE WINES. YET, HOW ELSE DOES THE
NOVICE WINE CONSUMER OR ENTHUSIAST ALIKE, WADE
THROUGH AN OVERWHELMING GLUT OF HYPE? CURTIS
MAR SH EXPL ORES THIS POLEMIC.

Curtis Marsh

WWW.ASIACUISINE.COM

T o score or not to score? That is the nagging question every wine
writer, wine or hospitality industry professional must grapple
with at some stage of their career. For a professional wine writer it
is discomfortingly critical to one’s reputation and possibly the only
way to establish credibility or make any commercial sense out of an
otherwise passion-driven philanthropic occupation.
Personally, I have a love-hate relationship with scoring, gaining much
intellectual stimulation analysing, interpreting and categorising
wine, indeed almost to the point of self vindication, yet detesting the
misinterpretation and exploitation of scores outside of the professional
milieu. As tempting as it is to join the status quo and gloat in the power
of the numerical pen, I continue to procrastinate over my duplicitous
principals; it remains my bête noire and a conundrum I am unlikely to
reconcile. I am however, more troubled by the growing cast of wine
consumers in Asia obsessed with scores — seemingly an inherent process
for choosing premium wines these days. It is not just the credulous trust
in scores that is a concern, but the dependence of wine merchants and
marketers on critics to sell wine through the blatant exploitation of
ratings. Even more worrying is the reality that the average consumer in
Asia is oblivious to these issues, being relatively new to Western style
wine and coincidently reared on the 100-point scoring system.
In actuality, this epidemic stems from the United States (US) where
such individuals are otherwise known as ‘score whores’ (aka wine
snobs), as divulged by a Master of Wine (MW) who had recently visited
the US and was amazed by the habitual devotion to wine scores. This
deep-seated reverence of the 100-point scale is largely due to endemic
wine publications such as the Wine Spectator, an inculcation of wine
scoring and high-profile wine critics, such as the omnipotent Robert
Parker (Parker). Before you start thinking that this is about to turn into
a Parker bashing article, on the contrary, I have utmost respect and
admiration for Parker. Clearly, he has an extraordinary palate matched
by an exhaustive knowledge of wine. I also like his writing style and
descriptive tasting notes; indeed, I deduce more from his tasting notes
than the scores. However, that does not mean I agree with all of his
assessments or preference of style. I am most certainly not impressed
by formulaic wines that are blatantly fashioned to please the Parker
palate and also remain sceptical of his methodology of determining
that a wine should only be given 89 points, just a mere one point short
of that magical 90 points.
What does perturb me though, is Parker’s somewhat snobbish and
hypocritical approach to certain wine producing countries in his
evolution. Case in point? He did not consider Australia worthy of a
visit as there were no rateable wines made there, yet did a complete
about-face and now has the deepest adoration for Barossa Valley
Shiraz or anything from Australia that is behemothic and scoring these
style of wines consistently in the high nineties. Moreover, and I find it
personally insulting, he has intonated in the same manner that New
Zealand wines are of insignificant interest to warrant a visit, which is
totally preposterous. Clearly, he is ill-informed.
wine press
To his credit, Parker has realised both his own shortcomings (Burgundy
being the most glaring) if not succumbing to the reality that the wine-
world is no longer as small as it was (yes, there is life after Bordeaux
and California), and it is physically impossible for a single critic to cover
every wine region of significance, that’s if it ever was, and begetting
regional specialists. Moreover, the internet has profoundly changed
the way we communicate on wine, albeit one hell of a noise coming
from both amateurs and professionals to the point where consumers
might become tone deaf to it all. Back to the ‘score whore’, a few
years ago when I was emceeing an options tasting, the entertaining
— if not masochistic — sport of identifying masked wines guided by
multi-choice questions, one of the participants announced, in an
irritating manner, that she and her husband only drank wines rated 95
points and above. Blind tastings are merciless to wine snobs and our
self-proclaimed connoisseur humiliated herself with an unequivocal
preference for a non-rated, humble Portuguese red (HK$240 per bottle)
over and above a celebrated 1998 Henschke Hill of Grace Shiraz, rated
97 points by Parker and valued at more than HK$3,000 per bottle at the
time. On the positive side, she was both enlightened and made more
confident of her own palate when the Portuguese red was announced
the unanimous favourite of the evening. It was, incidentally, the 2000
Quinta do Crasto Reserva Vinho Tinto, an outstanding Douro producer.
(visit www.quintadocrasto.pt)
If I could emphasise this type of tasting, whilst being a great deal of
fun as well as providing a relatively unbiased platform for enjoying
wine, it is incongruous with the appreciation of subliminal complexities
in wines such as Henschke Hill of Grace, ideally savoured singularly
and matched to the appropriate cuisine and occasion. Another recent
wine experience highlighting human behavioural inadequacies and
its consequences on wine was when I attended a luncheon hosted by
Château Haut-Brion, the celebrated First Growth Bordeaux which also
owns Châteaux La Mission Haut-Brion and Laville Haut-Brion, all part
of the Clarence Dillon empire. Putting aside the new range of generic
Bordeaux wines produced by the group, ostensibly the reason we
were invited, or shall I say, seduced by the sheer notion of trying top
estate wines, our group of so-called wine professionals seemed to be
totally focused on comparing or critiquing the more illustrious wines.
Indeed, the woman sitting next to me kept badgering me on which
wine I liked the most, and did not comprehend my answer of, “All of
them!” I believe she missed the point I was trying to make, that the
2004 Château Laville Haut-Brion Blanc was as enjoyable as the 2005
Château Haut-Brion Blanc, although completely different in style or
vintage expression. Ditto for the 1998 Château La Mission Haut-Brion
and 1995 Château Haut-Brion and even though I was quietly surprised
how excellent the subordinate Château La Mission Haut-Brion was,
I’d be damned if I was going to be intimidated by this captious group.
What is it with humanoids that we always have to be contentiously
comparative when there is more than one wine served or become super
critical when there are extraordinarily expensive bottles involved?
141
 The Point Of Scoring
argeting
That said, it would be naive to suggest that we could do without
personal opinions or ratings altogether; in reality, it is an entrenched
aspect of the competitive nature of consumers and consumerism.
Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, and if only we could move away
from the herd mentality and simply become more reliant on our own
tastes, or approach wine consumption with a much more adventurous,
opened minded manner.

Scores aside, the predictable question wine writers are always asked

aste
is, “What is your favourite wine?” To which I reply, “The wine I haven’t
tried yet,” emphasising that I gain the most pleasure in discovering
new taste sensations. The fact is: I have a wandering palate for food
and wine, greatly influenced by my mood and by different cuisines,
although inevitably, there are certain flavours, varieties and regions I
enjoy more than others. The very notion of drinking one type or style
of wine continuously escapes me (completely), and I think this view
is shared by most wine professionals and wine enthusiasts. To quote
the jovial New Zealand Master of Wine, Bob Campbell, “I am vinous

“
promiscuous.”

Anything above 95 points is money in

“
the bank, although a perfect 100 is more
likely to cause a massive headache for the
distributor and is a milestone that haunts
the producer in successive vintages for
the rest of their days.

The Rating Game

And yet, seemingly the exact opposite is happening to wine consumers’
palates; they are being dictated by scores or powerful critics and
corralled by the herd mentality and slaves of fashion, naively ensnared
in vinous mediocrity. The situation is not helped by the plethora of
pedestrian E-mails from wine merchants in circulation, the contents
are almost entirely a reproduction of scores and tasting notes verbatim,
little wonder that consumers are becoming lazier and coerced by
scores when it comes to purchasing wine. The embellishing of every
point above a strategic stratum of 90 points out of 100 is rampant.
Anything above 95 points is money in the bank, although a perfect
100 is more likely to cause a massive headache for the distributor and
is a milestone that haunts the producer in successive vintages for the
rest of their days. Curiously, it is only the 100-point system that has
any plagiaristic appeal predominantly from the great Parker who, after
all, invented this scoring system. After that, inconsequential in order,
comes other expertise in US publications such as Wine Spectator,
Steve Tanzer’s International Wine Cellars, Allen Meadow’s Burghound
and The Wine Enthusiast.
For reasons unknown, the respected English-based magazine Decanter,
which uses a star-rating system, is rarely quoted, rather ironic given
that it is the first international magazine to publish a dedicated Asia
edition printed in Mandarin. Neither does the indefatigable wine
authority Jancis Robinson MW get much airplay, perhaps because she
uses the English establishment 20-point scoring system. Even more
puzzling — not a word of the The World of Fine Wine magazine, arguably
the most serious (albeit a little highbrow at times) wine publication in
the world and admired for its scrupulous professional integrity.
It is not that I am questioning the competence of those who choose
to score or rate wines. On the contrary, there are countless writers,
critics, winemakers, wine and hospitality industry professionals with
encyclopaedic knowledge and seriously sharp palates who can dissect
and assess a wine with the precision and thoroughness of a forensic
scientist performing an autopsy, detecting winemaking faults in nano-
proportions. It is crucial, however, to keep in mind that individual scores
are highly subjective and that you need to synchronise the personality
and particular tastes or track record of the critic with your own likes or

WWW.ASIACUISINE.COM

dislikes. Where scores are a result of a tasting panel, we encounter one
of the most serious flaws associated with numerical ratings of wines,
and the Mathematics is not simple. The permutations in calculating the
mean score are highly manipulative, and like any statistic, the range or
difference between the largest and smallest value alters the outcome
significantly. Panel tasting outcomes can also be greatly obscured
by invited guest judges, particularly if in an international sense, as
it invariably takes some time to acclimatise their palates and their
scores can be widely divergent from the local panellists. These types
of tastings or any wine show, while topical and held in the spirit of
healthy competition, should not be seen as conclusive.
One should also take into account there is a predominance to assess
wine at the tasting bench and in exhaustive batches. While undoubtedly
executed professionally, normally arranged by region or variety with
wines masked to increase objectivity, the method lacks soul, and there
is the unavoidable element of comparisons that are often unjust. There
is also the question of the taster’s methodology or philosophy and
whether they are assessing the wine in context of the region’s known
characteristics or an accepted style, or have an all-encompassing
qualitative view. This issue is controversial, with some critics having
to defend their assessments. For example, James Halliday awarded
the 2006 De Bortoli Pinot Noir Rosé, Yarra Valley 94 points out of 100
points, and rightly so. However, there was much lamenting from other
journalists about how a Rosé (implying a simple wine) could be only
three points away from Penfold’s Grange (Australia’s icon and viewed
as profound), scored 97 points, the highest level in his 2008 Australian
Wine Companion. Obviously, Halliday rates his wines in accordance to
style and I applaud this.
Likewise, Jancis Robinson MW goes to great pains to explain how she
scores wine in a regional context, although she openly admits she is
not entirely satisfied with any scoring system. She too has encountered
criticism in her Purple Pages blog, (www.jancisrobinson.com) where
frustrated, want-to-be-wine critics have taken her to task, and I am
talking specifically about being interrogated on how she could score
Quartz Reef Pinot Noir from Central Otago, New Zealand (seemingly
unknown or of no pedigree) 18 points out of 20 points and Château
Petrus, Bordeaux (renowned and revered by wine snobs) also 18 points.
Notwithstanding her amazing tolerance and humility to answer these
inquisitions at great length, her final reply emphasised the Quartz Reef
was assessed in the context of New World Pinot Noir and the Château
Petrus in the context of Bordeaux. She mused, “But perhaps, strangely
for someone who studied Mathematics at Oxford, I’m not a great fan
of the conjunction of numbers and wine. Once numbers are involved,
it is all too easy to reduce wine to a financial commodity rather than
keep its precious status as a uniquely stimulating source of sensual
pleasure and conviviality.”
Technical issues aside, the main flaw in clinically rating wines is that
there is no accounting for the flavour and enhancing influences of
food, mood or your state of mind at the time of imbibing — all of which
will have a profound effect on your opinion of the wine. I can think of
endless personal experiences that demonstrate this, a prime example
is when absorbed in the surroundings and culture while travelling the
wine press
wine route: memories of a trip to the south of France, in the hills of the
Languedoc, an idyllic part of the world where Roman generals chose to
retire among the joie de vivre cultures of Catalonia and France. We are
in the tiny village of Sainte Croix de Quintillargues, luxuriating in the
jovial hospitality of Pierre Clavel on an impeccably radiant Provincial
afternoon. Pondering how unjustly maligned white wines are from this
region, we sip his unpretentious Cascaille Blanc, a blend of Roussanne,
Grenache Blanc and Rolle; rich, yet lively and savoury with dried herbs
and a salty finish. Relishing in the plump green olives, picked from
the trees surrounding us, along with all number of home-cured and
smoked pig parts and terrines, the synergies between the wine, food
and ambience were sublime. If compelled, I would score the wine a
perfect 100 points. For that matter, readers should search out Pierre
Clavel wines (www.vins-clavel.fr).
I recall a bittersweet experience of running a small business when I
discovered that my administration manager, who had impressed the
entire wine community with his unrivalled knowledge of old and rare
wines, was enjoying his research at my expense. Some time after his
expeditious departure, we unearthed a magnum of 1949 Comte de
Vogue, `Le Musigny’ Vielles Vignes Grand Cru red Burgundy, indeed rare
and expensive. Usually one only gets to eulogize such wines at formal
dinners, served in thimble proportions, consequently the enjoyment
exclusive to the bouquet. In a consoling act of decadence, I decided
to share the wine with three devoted drinking comrades. We were
in nirvana as we toasted both his exodus and expertise, immersing
ourselves in our gluttony and the captivating sweet perfume and
evocative secondary aromas of antique woods, wild mushrooms, truffles
and earthy minerals. Words will never do justice to the complex nuances
of this wine, and it remains my benchmark for Pinot Noir to this day.
As for a score, I would rate it 200 points out 100 points.
“
Technical issues aside, the
main flaw in clinically rating
wines is that there is no
accounting for the flavour
and enhancing influences of
food, mood or your state of
mind at the time of imbibing
— all of which will have a
profound effect on your
“
opinion of the wine.
143
wine press

Points Versus Prices

All this said, I could be on the wrong train altogether as far as Asia’s
mentality on wine ranking and perhaps scores have less impact than I
perceive. I recall sitting next to the owner of a prominent Cantonese
restaurant in Hong Kong a few years ago whereupon a line-up of
the best Australian whites and reds were paired impeccably with the
cuisine. It was clear he was unimpressed with the wines until coming
across the Jasper Hill Georgia’s Paddock Shiraz from Heathcote, where
his discernable grunt of appreciation and obvious preference for reds
with some substance prompted me to enquire on what he prefers to
drink or serve to his personal guests. He replied explicitly, “Only First
Growths if you are a friend, otherwise Second Growths if I do not know
you so well.” Does it simply boil down to prestige and face?
is not as controversial, placing a wine in a category or range of points
that allows for the shortfalls of panel tastings yet, at the same time
giving a clear enough indication of quality. This method is used by
the highly respected magazine Decanter and in the same ideology by
the world doyen of wine writers, Hugh Johnson. Johnson, I believe, is
even more correct, and perhaps diplomatic, in focusing his star-rating
on the vineyard itself rather than individual wines. As you become
more familiar with wine and begin travelling the wine regions of the
world — an enormous pleasure in its own and unquestionably the
best way to grasp the infinite nuances of wine, you come to realise it
is the producer that is paramount, and ratings or even vintages have
less relevance.

In the imperfect world of wine rankings, and out of all the different On a final note, in assessing any wine, this is only but a snapshot of a
methods, I personally prefer the Gambero Rosso three-glass system ‘living thing’ that undergoes a delicate, continuous transformation of
which is unquestionably approached with integrity, as is everything chemistry and integration of organisms. Ultimately, wine is subjective
associated with the Slow Food Editore (www.slowfood.com, also and should not be constrained by numbers. CM
imperative for travelling Italy, the infallible Slow Food Osterie and
Locande Guide). In addition to the glass-rating, which corresponds to
a range of scores using the 100-point system, the Gambero Rosso also
indicates the price range of the wine with a numerical categorisation
of one to eight, the latter being the most expensive. At first glance
this can be a confusing and mistaken for a rating or vintage evaluation
however, its intended purpose is to put in context the glasses awarded
and price/quality rapport.

Price/quality rapport is perilously subjective and clearly linked to one’s

disposable income and perhaps the overriding factor in categorising
wine, period. Invariably there are, discernable reference points to make
a judgement whether a wine is over-delivering, or under-delivering for
that matter, at its price point. Moreover, a tangible appreciation and
anecdotal corroboration amongst informed wine drinkers that often
set wines apart and naturally invokes the laws of supply and demand.
I suspect that many Asians, just like Caucasians, regardless of their
wealth, appreciate good value or, even better, a bargain. The greatest
value and bargains in today’s highly competitive world of wine is the
mid-ground, where passionate, dedicated owner-operators are trying
harder than ever to gain recognition and an edge.

When it comes to magazines publishing ratings or using regional or

comparative tastings as features, I personally believe the star-rating
system is the most just, even ethical method. It might not be as
glamorous or attention grabbing as the 100 points scale however; it

“ “
The greatest value and bargains in today’s
highly competitive world of wine is the mid-
ground, where passionate, dedicated owner-
operators are trying harder than ever to gain
recognition and an edge.

star-rating